Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[bobzmyunkle]

This is exactly what I explained earlier.

And I did thank you for your considered opinion.

A one stste solution genuinely is what it says

Did you explain your objection to this, I can't remember.

 

[First Aspect]

And I did thank you for your considered opinion.


Did you explain your objection to this, I can't remember.

Because it.ignores centuries of ethnic tension?

 

[Mr Celine]

The Scottish Greens are pushing for legal recognition for Polyamory.
The traditional 2 person relationship has legal protections, which aren’t accommodated in a multi party relationship. But I can’t see marriage rights ever extending beyond 2 people.
The absolutely crazy party of the motion is this bit.
“Where immigration rules or laws of asylum involve existing relationships with those already resident or citizens in Scotland those rules should take into account relationships that may involve multiple partners.”

DWP and predeccesors adjudication and decision making guides always had a huge chapter about polygamous marriages.

After nearly 40 years working for DWP and for welfare rights teams I've yet to come across a single example.

 

[Psamathe]

Even setting aside the total lack of realism, the problem is that other people who are not Cool Aid consumers are making their own mind up about what it means.

It is a debate the Greens simply cannot win.

And it completely distracts from the arguments they can win (in the eyes of the public) and policies they can influence (through Government).

 

[First Aspect]

And it completely distracts from the arguments they can win (in the eyes of the public) and policies they can influence (through Government).

Yep. It is the wrong hill to die on.

So is polygamy.

So was a great deal of the gender identity stuff they tied themselves up in, up in Scotland.

The pattern here is of virtue signalling idiots who can't be let anywhere near government.

 

[briantrumpet]

Because it.ignores centuries of ethnic tension?

You mean we don't want several centuries more of ethnic tension by eliminating a country that currently has a genocidal government, and displacing its people? Eliminating a country because of its current government seems like a bad idea. But maybe that's just me.

 

[First Aspect]

You mean we don't want several centuries more of ethnic tension by eliminating a country that currently has a genocidal government, and displacing its people? Eliminating a country because of its current government seems like a bad idea. But maybe that's just me.

There also seem to be problems inherent in selecting a particular point in time as justifying some "correct" form of nationhood over and above anything that came before or since.

 

[matticus]

I'm so glad I never got involved in student poltics:

https://www.uklfi.com/glasgow-unive...-ban-on-zionists-following-uklfi-intervention

On 14 October, Glasgow University Justice for Palestine Society (GUJPS) and the UofG Divestment Coalition published a joint Instagram post encouraging student societies to amend their constitutions to declare that “Zionism will not be tolerated”.

The campaign, headed “ZIONISM IS RACISM”, urged societies to create a “zionist free environment” and proposed adding Zionism to a list of prohibited conduct alongside racism, sexism, homophobia and religious discrimination.

 

[briantrumpet]

The campaign, headed “ZIONISM IS RACISM”, urged societies to create a “zionist free environment” and proposed adding Zionism to a list of prohibited conduct alongside racism, sexism, homophobia and religious discrimination.

I'm confused. So they want to include a statement of actual religious discrimination (prohibiting Zionism) alongside a statement saying religious discrimination is prohibited? Have I got that right?